Posted 4 years ago on Feb. 7, 2013, 9:31 p.m. EST by Shayneh
(-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun-related deaths combined

Your doctor is FAR more likely to kill you than an armed criminal
It's true: You are 64 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than by someone else wielding a gun.

That's because 19,766 of the total 31,940 gun deaths in the USA (in the year 2011) were suicides. So the actual number of deaths from other people shooting you is only 12,174.

Doctors, comparatively, kill 783,936 people each year, which is 64 times higher than 12,174. Doctors shoot you not with bullets, but with vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals... all of which turn out to be FAR more deadly than guns.

Also, You're most likely right, people who are well financially, mentally, emotionally and spiritually probably don't shoot people. But if that is the case, why can't America keep her people from killing themselves and others? What about us creates more basket-cases per capita?

I know plenty of people who aren't "financially well" who haven't killed anyone, and most likely never will. I know people who don't believe in spirituality out-right who haven't killed anyone and most likely never will. I know emotionally fragile people who aren't a danger to society. Millions of Americans deal with all kinds of imperfection in their lives without shooting other people.

America isn't the only country in which fellow citizens shoot each other. We didn't invent murder, and if there was no America, we'd be talking about these supposed basket cases using some other nationality. The idea that America as a country, as a concept, as a nation is somehow responsible for the fact that human beings sometimes kill other human beings is irrational.

Forget it, I won't debate some one who glosses over the per capita reference and makes a "because people are bad we should do nothing" stance on a public health problem.

So if it ain't the deficiency of the individual that makes our percapita rate higher, mind you, as high as the drunk driving rate was in the '80s, then what caused such an explosion in incidences within our population?

I say it's a combination of the economy and our wars, but that is just what historical trends lead me to believe. But since most of our history has been shitty economic conditions for big swathes of her people and military diplomacy for everyone else, I could be wrong.

Wow. Perhaps you could have indicated that your "per capita" reference was so important to you that no direct response to it specifically qualified me as a "glosser" and a "because people are bad we should do nothing about public health problems" stander.

Obviously I wasted my time attempting to discuss anything with you while hoping for logic and reason to exercised on both sides.

So, let me clarify, you get to make irrational assumptions about people who do not respond to your every word in the exact manner you want them to, (and then accuse them of even more outrageous character flaws when they choose to disengage rather than catering to your demands) and then claim to be both logical and reasonable.

"As a 2011 United Nations report notes, America has a “relatively high homicide rate compared to other countries with a similar socio-economic level,” but per-capita homicide rates in the Caribbean, Central America and Africa are often much higher and approach “crisis” levels there. The relationship between gun availability and homicide rates is, according to an American Journal of Criminal Justice paper, “not stable across nations.”

Shayneh was comparing the number of doctor caused fatalities to the number of armed criminal fatalities. You then introduced the ideas about "allowing one thing to keep killing people..." and "owning" "military explosives" into the conversation-things Shayneh did not use in her comparison and as such are not relevant to her comparison.

Your use of these things distract from her point and attempt to lead the reader into supporting your conclusion about her logic. A conclusion you could only arrive at by CHANGING what she actually said into something completely different.

I find it odd that you continue to include the term "military explosives" when responding to Shayneh instead of just using the term "guns" again. As far as I can tell, Shayneh hasn't used that term once, and most people would associate explosives used by the military with bombs, grenades, land mines etc. Since Shayneh hasn't said anything about people being allowed to own bombs, grenades, or land mines, it appears that you are intentionally using that term as some kind of emotional appeal designed to make Shayneh's argument look illogical.

'As far as I can tell' - that's the disconnect. On many other posts she has advocated for the individual right to own 'military explosives'. ie: AR-15, AK-47 etc. Those are military weapons. They are explosives.

I don't use the word 'gun' because it's too broad. There's a difference between the potential killing capability of a 7 round revolver and a military weapon with a 30 round magazine.

Taken altogether, my past discussions with her about military explosives, my logic is not faulty. Her post is not about doctors or drugs. It's about gun control. Red Herring.

I'm sorry, but YOUR definition of AR-15, AK-47's as "military explosives" is a personal choice that acts as a false equivalence where there really isn't one. You say you don't use the word "gun" because it's too broad, and then use an even broader category of things that involve everything from gases under pressure to rocket propulsion!

The "potential" killing capability of ANY round of ammunition, is exactly the same no matter what kind of a gun it's fired from. It only has the ability to KILL someone, or something, if it strikes it's target in a manner that results in death and that is dependent upon a number of other things happening at the same time. A well trained gunman with a 7 round revolver might kill more people than an ill trained gunman with 30 rounds. Men with box cutters took down 4 airplanes on 9-11 and killed thousands of people with huge "civilian explosives".

Your past history with her does not grant you some kind of special authority that allows you to defy the rules of logic and reasoning with her in all future discussions. That isn't how logic works.

'military explosive' - appeal to emotion - no. Exaggeration - yes. Exaggeration is often used to point out the absurd. ie: individual civilians owning AK-47's for personal self defense or sport. Furthermore, it's a distraction to be on the gun terminology merry-go-round. So if it makes you feel better, I concede that 'military explosive' is intentionally exaggerated to make a point.

'A well trained gunman with a 7 round revolver might kill more people than an ill trained gunman with 30 rounds' - I'll clarify. All else being equal - there is a higher probability that more people would be killed or injured from a weapon that holds a 30 round magazine with a rate of fire of 40-60 rounds per minute than a 7 round handgun with a lower fire rate.

'Men with box cutters took down 4 airplanes ' - I already said that : 'Lots of different things kill people. Allowing one thing to keep killing people because another separate thing kills more people, makes absolutely zero sense'.

There are lots of other things that kill more people. I don't dispute that. I acknowledged it. That there are other things that kill more people is not justification for civilians to own 'semiautomatic military style, designed for the military, common use on the battlefield to lay ground fire in battle, type of weapons'.

'Your past history with her does not grant you some kind of special authority that allows you to defy the rules of logic and reasoning with her in all future discussions' - I have not defied any rules of logic. It's a continuation of previous discussions. Nor do you have any special authority. I don't need your permission or approval to continue a discussion. My continuing a discussion is not a Red Herring. It's a continued discussion about gun control. That you were not aware of. That's fine. I explained it to you.

'you are intentionally using that term as some kind of emotional appeal designed to make Shayneh's argument look illogical - her argument is illogical on it's face. No matter what terminology I use -'military explosive', 'semi-automatic military assault weapon', 'gun', or 'semiautomatic military style, designed for the military, common use on the battlefield to lay ground fire in battle, type of weapons'.

But if it makes you happy, I'll restate it:

Since doctors and drugs kill more people than 'guns', therefore, people should be able to own 'guns'.

Or

Since doctors and drugs kill more people than 'guns', therefore, people should stop going to the doctor and own 'guns'.

That you believe that owning semi automatic weapons is absurd is your personal opinion and your use of exaggeration feels like a desperate attempt to make Shayneh's opinion look more ridiculous so yours looks more credible.

"All else being equal" is important isn't it? Your higher probability theory REQUIRES that all of the conditions and factors in a gun related incident are EQUAL. It's absurd to think that they even, ever could be. So your argument that high capacity guns result in more deaths or injuries than small capacity guns isn't based on logic or facts. According to every crime statistic available, high capacity gun related deaths and injuries make up a very small percentage of overall gun deaths and injuries. Handguns are by far the weapon of choice. (Hint-they are easy to conceal and carry around, cost a lot less, and are easier to buy, operate, and steal)

IF Shayneh's argument IS that "since doctors and drugs kill more people than guns, therefore, people should be able to own guns"-then it is illogical. But by the same criteria, so is acknowledging that Shayneh's data is correct but arguing FOR the thing that kills more people and against the thing that kills less people. If people should be allowed to make their own decisions about their bodily health, then surely they should be allowed to make decisions about their LIFE. If doctors and medicines are valuable because they "keep more people from dying than they kill" then GUNS are valuable in the exact same way.

OldJohn keeps bringing up cancer, and you seem to make it clear that you would turn to medicine and doctors to help you fight for your life against dangerous, invasive cells, but you also think that someone protecting their life against dangerous, invasive humans is "absurd". You laughed about treating cancer with carrots and juice, hell no, you're all for the most aggressive treatments possible! But you're completely against people who don't want to fight off intruders with the most aggressive means possible.

'high capacity gun related deaths and injuries make up a very small percentage of overall gun deaths' - I don't dispute that. The point is they are unreasonable as a means of self defense. Common law and case law provides for the right of reasonable self defense. Automatic weapons/machine guns were made illegal in 1934. There is no compelling evidence that high ammunition semi-auto military style weapons are necessary for self defense. We aren't less safe as a result of the 1934/1968 Firearms Acts. There is no compelling evidence that any person would be less safe by banning high ammunition military style weapons as well.

There is good evidence that banning high ammunition military style weapons will reduce mass shooting. There were a dozen mass shootings in Australia in the decade prior to their assualt weapons ban. There have been none in the 15 years since their weapons ban.

'arguing FOR the thing that kills more people' - that any individual chooses to see doctors or use drugs, despite the risks, only threatens the life of the individual.

'If doctors and medicines are valuable because they "keep more people from dying than they kill" then GUNS are valuable in the exact same way' - no they're not. First, type of gun is the issue. Not all guns are equal. Otherwise, you could argue for repealing the the 1934/1968 Firearms Act. Second, guns threaten the lives of others. Doctors and drugs only threaten the life of the individual choosing to be treated.

'If doctors and medicines are valuable because they "keep more people from dying than they kill" then GUNS are valuable in the exact same way' - false premise. We know that doctors keep more people from dying than they kill. You have not made the case that guns keep more people from dying than they kill.

'you're completely against people who don't want to fight off intruders with the most aggressive means possible' - as a society, we recognize the right to reasonable self defense. Not self defense by the most aggressive means possible. Otherwise, we could all have fully automatic weapons and repeal the Firearms Act. If that were the standard that we operate under - 'most aggressive means possible'. It's not.

"Unreasonable as a means of self defense". How so? Anything that prevents someone else from killing or harming me, or my loved ones, is reasonable whether it's a knife, an AR-16, or my late Aunt Ethel's ugly lamp. As long as criminals can get their hands on them, then it's perfectly reasonable to defend ourselves accordingly. In fact, it would be unreasonable NOT to.

No, there has been no "mass shootings" in Australia since their ban. But, in a 2008 report conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology, which reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, it also reported an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults!
The people of Australia are indeed "less safe" since their government banned "assault weapons". And currently in the US, we have the lowest homicide rates we've had since the 1960's with all those "assault style" weapons on the street. In fact, the murder date has dropped 17% in this country in the past decade. (Rate of murder drop in Australia was a modest 3.2% after the ban)

The National Institute of Justice, the US Department of Justice, the Center for Disease Control, and the National Research Council all conducted studies in relation to the Federal Assault Weapons ban that expired in 2004 and ALL of them concluded essentially the same thing, "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence".

But the fact remains that violent crime HAS been dropping in this country even as the number of high capacity gun owners climbs.

You mentioned things that threaten the lives of others, like cars for example? Driving while drunk is "banned" in this country and yet in 2010, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths last year. We could save the lives of at least 10,000 people a year if we just banned alcohol completely. Made it illegal to buy or manufacture it. We don't need it to hunt or protect ourselves either.

Here's an article by James Alan Fox, a respected expert professor and criminologist-

And here's an excellent source for statistics that show overwhelmingly compelling evidence that guns do indeed protect more people than they harm every year. I'll let them make "my case". If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's a portion of the conclusion:

"Putting together all of these results, we find that there is a good correspondence among them. They are derived from different approaches, so that correspondence adds credibility to each method. Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians. There may be some overlap in these two categories because of the ways in which the data are collected, but there are almost certainly some two to four million fewer completed crimes each year as the result of civilian gun ownership".

'an AR-16' - is not reasonable. You can't make someone more dead. The purpose of a high magazine semi-automatic weapon is to be able to kill alot of people. Not make one assailant more dead. Most violent crime is committed by a single or two attackers. Not 20 or 50 attackers.

'As long as criminals can get their hands on them, then it's perfectly reasonable to defend ourselves accordingly' - assault weapons are only used in around 1-2% of violent crimes. So the likelihood that you would need an assault weapon to counter an assault weapon is very very low.

'As long as criminals can get their hands on them' - allowing something to be legal because criminals will always do it, is poor logic. Under that logic, we would get rid of all laws because criminals break them.

'insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence' - it may be decades before the supply dries up to have an effect. Just like with fully auto weapons. We know the fully automatic weapon ban worked. No reason to believe the same couldn't happen with high magazine semi automatics.

'the fact remains that violent crime HAS been dropping in this country even as the number of high capacity gun owners climbs' - correlation does not equal causation. Overall crime has been dropping for 30 years. Experts attribute this to demographic change, better more proactive policing and higher incarceration rates. Not more assault weapons. And high magazine assualt weapon ownership is not increasing as far as I'm aware. Less people own more weapons. Stockpiling.

Australia - 'an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults' - as awful as that is, the fact remains, there is less death. The Australian Institute of Criminology also says that there is an increase in the reporting rate ie: some people who are assualted, especially sexual assault, don't report it. Part of this increase includes the increase in reporting. Also, 'Other research suggests this increase is not a recent phenomenon, but started to rise in the 1970s (Chappell 1995).' So this all seems a bit squishy.

Drunk driving incidents, injuries and deaths are way way down. The fatality rate of drunk driving has been cut in half over the past 10 years. Because of stricter laws and increased penalties. Which is the purpose of gun control legislation.

The article you referenced about gun myths - I mostly agree with it. In fact, it supports much of what I've been saying. It's ironic the fact that many of those arguing for their 2nd Amendment rights, especially as if it is unlimited, and say we should focus on the mentally ill, are often the same ones that have advocated and are/have been reducing federal funding for mental health. That's a huge disconnect.

This expert that you cited is against conceal and carry laws and says it's a myth that, 'We just need to enforce existing gun laws'. He is advocating for gun control legislation. He ends with 'Sensible gun laws, affordable mental-health care, and reasonable security measures are all worthwhile, and would enhance the well being of millions of Americans. We shouldn’t, however, expect such efforts to take a big bite out of mass murder. Of course, a nibble or two would be reason enough.'

'violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians' - This article is about handguns. Not high magazine assault weapons. It specifically states:

'The ownership of other guns, rifles and shotguns, has not been included because the effect was not statistically significant'.

It also includes non deadly crimes, such as burglary and theft. Which is a little different than making a case that guns keep more people from dying than they kill. Basically the article says that violent crime is deterred by handguns. I don't dispute.

The article states there are : '2,200 to 7,900 fewer murders per year, implying that the murder rate would have been some 10 to 37 percent higher than it actually was had civilians not had guns for self- defense.' You would have to reach 51% to prove that guns keep more people from dying than they kill. This says, at best, it's 37%.

I'm fine with sensible gun laws. Even background checks. But the AR-15 (not an AR-16...wrong key..my bad) available to civilians is just a rifle. Semi-auto fire only rifles of any caliber are not military grade "assault weapons" no matter how much they "look" like them. Period. Lots of handguns are semi auto too.

And again, the experts like Dr. Fox will tell you that mass shootings are not on the rise and the majority of mass murderers use weapons that are not considered assault weapons anyway.

What stops someone from just learning how to quick load lower magazines and then just carrying extra mags? I'm guessing that's something that a person determined to kill a lot of people is going to do.

'grind on carrots' lol. Good point. She doesn't need military explosives. She just needs to never see a doctor again or take any prescription drugs ever again and she'll be alot safer. Way safer than owning a gun.

Unless big pharma can slap a patent on something and sell it, it is berated by them. How long have they resisted the benefits of good nutrition, herbal medicines, and excercise. Their answer is always, more drugs.

They're not in the business of creating healthy cereals, making herbal medicines, nor of making exercise routines or selling fitness equipment. They have labs and they make drugs. That's their business, it's normal. Do you see Intel selling cheese?

Your argument makes no sense. In what way is a drug company refusing good nutrition. They just make drugs. They don't force you to take them.

Doctors prescribe remedies, not "big pharma".

Unless big pharma can slap a patent on something and sell it, it is berated by them

Nonsense. Conspiracy theory hogwash. You don't need a patent to make money. Some people make millions selling water. Big companies want to make big money period. If they have medication that makes one better and can sell, they will sell it.

And, you hate "big pharma", they're an evil conspiracy, so who cares? Don't use drugs. Your choice. Gnarl on bio-friendly carrots if you get cancer.

When you say, "Big companies want to make big money period," well...that seems to bolster my case more than yours, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. All companies want to make money. That's what they do. You argued that the "bigpharma" resisted the benefits of good nutrition, herbal medicines, and exercise. That's like arguing that a natural health food store resists the benefits of modern medicine. They are two different things!

Why do you think a drug company should build exercise machines???

Just by calling it "conspiracy nonsense" does not make it so.

I'm not the one who originally called it that. There's all kinds of website that explain this conspiracy theory. Read them.

Your original description had hallmarks of conspiracy theories, that's why I called it that. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and screws like a duck, then it's most likely a duck. The idea that companies need patents to make money is one of those hallmarks. A quick look around the market place and you'll see many non-patented products like water selling in the millions.

Well it's part of todays society - we have a "sick drug society". Now that is not to say that there are those who actually need to be on drugs but it is the "drug society" that is causing most of the problems in this country.

Hell they are giving children tylnol as soon as they can speak and say "I have a headache".

C-SPAN today had a really good program on about drugs in America - big problem - bigger then 'gun violence" but it is being kept "silent".

I agree with you too that people who have let drugs take control of their lives aren't go to quit taking them any time soon

Some questions I think we have to ask ourselves are; How or what caused these kids to get on drugs in the first place?

Will the problems get worse as these kids realize that their futures don't add up?

And how big a part do physician prescribed drugs play in our problems?

Almost exactly two years ago in a town near me, three kids made a suicide pact, and drove their car into the school that the driver had attended elementary school in years earlier. That tragedy hit me hard because that was the school I attended decades earlier.

These are middle-class kids we are talking about here. The car was new, the father of the driver was a town councilman in the town where this school was located. It was just really sad.

"Animals prey on each other physically. Man, with his superior intelligence doesn't prey on his fellow man physically, but rather financially. Man is so avaricious that every conceivable law regarding has to be passed to protect man from his fellow man regarding money!"

The medical industry ( which should have never become an industry) is failing mainly due to it's profit-mongering nature that only works by creating and sustaining illness. America has the best emergency care in the world but that's all and I'll bet that many hospitals will even quit providing emergency care once Obamacare kicks in full gear. We have extremely poor outcomes in general medical treatments and in veterinarian medicine and dentistry. BEWARE..do your own homework.

Dental care -just as corrupt and many corporate owned dental offices are popping up all over the country- again, paying doctors by commission. All that fluoride that was supposed to be good for our teeth is literally destroying our teeth and our bones- especially children's. Read the label...it's always said, ' DO NOT SWALLOW" and yet we put fluoride in our mouths? I guess that means it's safe to gargle with arsenic as long as you don't swallow.

Dr. Mercola is a very trustworthy doctor . He has many articles and videos about vaccines, dentistry, death by medicine, pet care, and more. I highly recommend joining his site to stay up to date on medical topics.

Look for a good doctor that is an osteopath ( in America), an NMD, Naturopathic Medical Doctor or a doctor of Integrative Medicine.

Although natural medicine, eastern medicine and other integrative therapies have become popular over the years, once big pharma patents their own synthetic version of any natural therapy, you can bet that all that is good for us today will become poison tomorrow. The FDA, under the influence of big pharma and guidance of Codex Alimentarius has been aggressively trying to classify most vitamins, herbs and supplements as drugs, thereby forcing the consumer to visit a doctor for a prescription ( a synthetic version, not natural). By creating " safe upper limits" of a vitamin, you will be forced to purchase more in order to meet the human requirement.
Ever seen this video with Mel Gibson from the 90's? Hilarious? or maybe not?

I don't know where the quote at the beginning comes from, but man preys on his fellow man physically all the time. Beatings, rapes, mutilations, murders. Man also preys on his fellow man emotionally all the time-lies, slander, propaganda, spin, abuse, name calling, accusations. And spiritually.

Not all animals prey on other animals. And the whole of man kind does not prey on all of mankind either.

The writer is referring to an animal's dependence on prey to survive. You're assigning a more figurative definition to prey. We don't prey on each other for food but we do need money to survive and we must get that money from other humans.

I understood you but you're using it in figurative terms, not biological. People don't rape or abuse in order to seek food, they do so for psychological needs, not physical survival. However, money is needed for survival..it buys our food.

Your ban on birth is called Government funded abortion and it's already endorsed by Obama and the Dems. Obama even believes that after a botched abortion the Doctor should still kill the baby. How's that for your cold blooded? Barry the Drone Master strikes again.

Not much of a success rate. Natural healing is on will soon be an option for us all. Nicholas Culpepper stood alone when they doctors went quack he tried to show/tell in warning and they called him crazy and worse though he earned the term "Original Bad Boy" I am not one to go doctor. The ills are from the meat eating you are what you eat and flesh=death

Just because we have doctors who save lives that doesn't mean all doctors are smart. Remember the child that was electrocuted because the doctor reversed the electrical terminals - well maybe you don't.

How about all the "mis-perscribed" medication because doctors have a tendency to scribble instead of write out in plain english the perscription.

That's right. Not all doctors graduate at the top of their class...there is a bottom rung. But, even so, not all doctors who were at the top of their class make good doctors. Some would be better suited to research. There are plenty of doctors who abuse substances as well and conduct surgeries while intoxicated. It's kind of hard to instantly sober up when you're paged for an emergency during a cocktail party.
Aside from those things, the problem really begins with their corporate funded educations that prepare them for being receptive to drug reps that entice them with lots of kickbacks and expensive vacations, cars and TV's and for allowing the FDA and insurance companies to decide what is best for the patient.

Why not use all your time and energy to discuss and implement projects that would make America better. Oh yeah, because in the year+ you've been using this site you haven't made one single tangible contribution to your community. You'd rather talk in the wind and waste time attacking those you perceive as trolls instead of doing effort to build a better world. Incidentally, efforts to create a better world have long lasting effects, attacking a troll is useless just after the attack.

Why do you post useless stuff here? Attacking the trolls is wasting your time. The best way to piss off republicans is to get out and do positive change in your society.

Yes I am "condescending" because I like to tell it like it is instead of being "politically correct".

As far as being "anti OWS" if I were I would be criticizing, condemming, name calling or anything else that would be derogatory towards OWS.

But I am not - I just like to put information out there for people to think about and respond to. Doesn't matter if they agree or not, it gets them thinking.

If we only focused on just the "negatives" then there would be very few people blogging on this site. There has to be some "positivitism" light shed on this site to at least let people know there are other options when it comes to life and living.

You have no argument here. If anything this just shows we need to better fund health care and make it better than it is.

Also I find it absurd when people try to minimize death by saying "only"

What a distraction.

I wish all the "pro guns" people saying "constitution" would speak up about the assaults on freedom of speech, the brutality against protesters, spying on Americans, and acting within the constitution in acts of war. Or maybe mention the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This means implementing reforms for economic equality.

I wish all the "ban guns" people would speak up about banning drone strikes and ending wars and demilitarizing the police. As well as make suggestions of providing opportunity to steer people away from resorting to a life that utilizes gun violence. This means implementing reforms for economic equality.

You will never get "all" of "any group of people" to speak up for all of the same things. I know many "pro-gun people", and many "ban guns" people and they all speak up about different things. What you are really wishing for is a world where values the same things, wants the same things, sees things the same way, and acts in the same ways.

There is no such world. There never has been. Wishing for it is a distraction too.

Well if you disagree then provide some factual information - I don't have a problem with that. I mean it's easy to criticize when you disagree but at least have some substance to back up your disagreement - ok.

It's below me. I don't argue against ridiculous arguments. If you can't see the logical fallacies in your position that's fine. What I'll say is that if those are the arguments used by gun advocates at this time, it looks like you guys are pretty damn desperate.

I got to thinking about why there is disagreement with the information provided and I think I figured it out - it's probably because those of you who disagreed are on drugs and reset the fact that a comparison is made between "doctors" and fireamrs.

But the truth is what it is - deal with it - unless you can provide factual information to prove othewise when it comes to "doctors and death".

Lets also not forget the 'deth panel" that Obama is putting in place to control costs for his Obama care.